HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 04 Council MinutesAGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: 5/2/2016
Meeting Type: Regular Meeting
Staff Contact/Dept.: Amy Sowa
Staff Phone No: 541-726-3700
Estimated Time: Consent Calendar
S P R I N G F I E L D
C I T Y C O U N C I L
Council Goals: Mandate
ITEM TITLE:
COUNCIL MINUTES
ACTION
REQUESTED:
By motion, approval of the attached minutes.
ISSUE
STATEMENT:
The attached minutes are submitted for Council approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
Minutes:
a. March 14, 2016 – Work Session
b. March 21, 2016 – Regular Meeting
c. March 28, 2016 – Work Session
d. April 4, 2016 – Work Session
DISCUSSION/
FINANCIAL
IMPACT:
None.
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY MARCH 14, 2016
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Library Meeting Room, 225 Fifth Street,
Springfield, Oregon, on Monday March 14, 2016 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Wylie, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and
Pishioneri. Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City
Attorney Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
1. Historic Commission Interview.
Jim Donovan, Planning Supervisor, presented the staff report on this item.
There are four vacancies on the seven-member Historic Commission as a result of two term
expirations and two resignations. After a 3-month recruitment period that closed on February 8, 2016,
the Department received applications from Kristina Koenig, Mackenzie Karp and Jonathan Siegle.
Ms. Koenig and Ms. Karp were interviewed at the Council Work Session held on February 22, 2016.
Mr. Siegle will be interviewed tonight.
The vacancies on the Historic Commission are a result of term expirations for Commissioners Dannie
Helm and Kuri Gill, and the resignation of Commissioners Vincent Martorello and Kerry Barbero.
Qualifications for membership on the Historic Commission include expertise in the fields of
architecture, history, architectural history, planning, or archeology; residency within the Metro Plan
boundaries; or as residents, electors, or property owners within Springfield. In addition, the Council
shall solicit recommendations for appointment from Willamalane and School District #19 (Municipal
Code Section 2.502). The School District declined to recommend appointees to fill these vacancies;
Willamalane recommended applicant Kristina Koenig to fill the vacancy created by Commissioner
Martorello’s resignation.
State and Federal funding of the City’s historic preservation activities stipulate that a majority of the
Commissioners have professional qualifications in a field related to historic preservation. Two current
members and two applicants possess these qualifications and also meet or partially meet the
qualifications and standards set forth by the National Park Service regarding commissions (See
Attachments 3 and 4). Mr. Siegle’s education experience is in Architectural History and Cultural
Anthropology, he resides in the Washburne District and has previously served on Springfield’s
Planning Commission and Historic Commission.
Springfield Municipal Code Section 2.506 states that any vacancy shall be filled for the unexpired
portion of the term of the member creating the vacancy, and Section 2.504 states that appointed
members shall hold office for four years with the terms staggered to provide overlapping and
continuity. The candidates appointed for a first term are eligible to serve for four years beginning on
the date of appointment by City Council. The candidate appointed to fill Commissioner Martorello’s
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 14, 2016
Page 2
vacancy is eligible to serve the remaining portion of this term, which expires on February 2, 2018.
Appointment of Historic Commission applicants is currently scheduled for March 21, 2016.
The Mayor and Council introduced themselves to Mr. Siegle.
Council interviewed Mr. Siegle with the following questions:
1. Describe your professional and personal experience as it relates to your desire to become a
Historic Commissioner. (Councilor Wylie)
2. Describe your familiarity with the City’s historic resources. (Councilor Ralston)
3. What is it about Springfield’s history that interests you most? (Councilor Pishioneri)
4. Why are you interested in serving on the Historic Commission? (Councilor Woodrow)
5. What initiatives are you interested in working on if you are appointed as a Commissioner?
(Councilor VanGordon)
6. Have you attended a Historic Commission meeting? If so, what were your impressions?
(Councilor Moore)
Council discussed the qualifications of all three applicants and decided to appoint all three to the
Historic Commission during the March 21, 2016 Council meeting.
2. Budget Committee Interviews.
Bob Duey, Finance Director, presented the staff report on this item.
Applicants are being sought to represent Wards 3, 5 and 6 where former committee members’ terms
expired. The recruitment for these vacancies opened on January 5, 2016 and closed on March 4, 2016.
No candidates applied for Ward 3 however an interim candidate has been identified for a one year
term ending on December 31, 2016. The appointee for both Ward 5 and Ward 6 will serve a three
year term that will expire on December 31, 2018.
The Council is requested to interview three applicants. Budget Committee appointments are scheduled
to be ratified at the Regular Session Meeting on March 21, 2016.
The Mayor and Council introduced themselves to the applicants (Nathan Mischel, Victoria Doyle, and
Diana Alldredge) and asked them the following questions:
1. Describe your professional and personal experience as it relates to your desire to become a
committee member. (Councilor Wylie)
2. If you were on the Budget Committee and were looking at one of the City’s services to decide
how much should be funded through general taxes and how much through specific fees on
customers, what questions would you want to have answered in order to make your decision?
(Councilor Ralston)
3. The Budget Committee meets on Tuesdays in April and May, generally for a total of four or
five meetings. The meetings start at 5:30 or 6:00 and usually last three hours. There is
occasionally a mid-year meeting in December or January. Will you be able to meet the time
requirements of the Committee? (Councilor Pishioneri)
4. While all of Springfield services seem to have strong support from different areas of the
community, it is often necessary to prioritize services for budgetary reasons. How would you
go about the task of establishing priorities among services? (Councilor Woodrow)
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 14, 2016
Page 3
5. Why are you interested in serving on/continuing to serve on the Budget Committee? (Mayor
Lundberg)
6. Describe your familiarity with the City’s budget. (Councilor VanGordon)
7. Often times the members of the Budget Committee have different opinions on how the
citizens’ money should be spent. What is your experience with working as a member of a
diverse group and helping to ensure that all opinions are heard and considered? (Councilor
Moore)
Council discussed the qualifications of each applicant and decided to appoint all three at the March 21,
2016 regular meeting. Mr. Mischel’s appointment will be for one year only.
3. Master Fees and Charges Schedule – Spring 2016 Update.
Bob Duey, Finance Director, presented the staff report on this item.
Each year, Council and staff review existing fees and charges for appropriateness of rates for meeting
cost recovery targets as well as reviewing for areas where new or additional fees should be considered.
This spring of 2016 review will focus on updates for annual impacts of inflation, new fees and
omissions as directed by Council.
The City’s schedule of fees and charges is established by Council action. The work in the spring of
2013 by the Council and staff consolidated past documents describing the City’s various fees and the
method for making changes into a single document titled Master Fees and Charges schedule. This
document provides an easy reference for citizens, Councilors, and staff to identify the current fees
authorized to be levied and collected by the City.
Changes to the City of Springfield’s fees and charges can be modified through action by the Council
or staff. The most common of actions by the Council is by simple resolution. The authorization to
levy the fee may be contained in the municipal, building, development, or fire codes, but the actual
amount of the fee itself is established by resolution. These most commonly are brought to the Council
with a public hearing and are adopted at that time.
Other fees may be authorized by the municipal, building, development, or fire codes and the specific
amount of the fee is also contained within that same code. In those cases, the respective code itself
must be amended by ordinance and most commonly requires a public hearing, a first reading and a
second reading prior to adoption.
In this review, the following changes in the Master Fees and Charges Schedule are being considered:
All fees and charges are examined by City staff to evaluate if a yearly adjustment should be
considered. Most changes being identified are increases for a 2% Cost-of-Living-Adjustment (COLA)
and/or minor changes in descriptions. However, for the proceeding fees and charges, either changes
are being recommended above a 2% COLA, there are new fees, or there are significant changes in
descriptions. Please note, the City Attorney’s Office is working on the Recreational Marijuana and
Growers/Processors fee, which will be effective this year. An Emergency Ordinance will be applied
for to establish the municipal code and corresponding fees, so those fees are not reflected in this
update. The City Manager’s Office is reviewing the Downtown Parking Program and if there are
recommendations to change the current fees, they will come to the Council in a separate action.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 14, 2016
Page 4
Mr. Duey said setting fees and charges is important as they go through the Priority Based Budgeting
(PBB) process. Staff has identified a list of fees and charges to go through this spring and fall to look
at from a cost recovery standpoint and how should be paying fees. They expect to come back with
those adjustments in October or November. He described some of the adjustments in fees. The Fire fee
is a new fee to match both the Eugene and Springfield departments, keeping them consistent.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the Manufactured Dwelling Park License and why the category for
over 100 spaces is per space, rather than a flat fee. The narrative has it written out per unit for all
categories.
Ms. Lewis said the Manufactured Dwelling Park License always had a flat rate, yet were inconsistent
in each level. When trying to apply the COLA adjustment, she looked at what the per space rate was
for the maximum number of spaces and apply the COLA so there would be a consistent COLA
adjustment from year to year. She tried to match the per space rate as closely to what it was
previously.
Mr. Duey referred to Section 6: Building and Safety Fees. These are fees currently not in the fee
schedule. Upon providing a draft of the revised Building and Safety Fees to the State of Oregon
Building Code Division, we were found non-compliant. A number of additional charges were added
to bring us into compliance. Fees were established based on local market rates.
Matthew Ruettgers said the permits are required per ORS. The State helped several jurisdictions add
these into their fee schedule. Springfield staff did look at the market rate to set the fee. This could
provide opportunity to combine permits for developers.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the CAD Reports under Section 5. He asked if this brought us to the
same fee as Eugene uses. He said many jurisdictions have a one-time fee, plus a per page charge.
Mr. Duey said this is different from Police Reports which do have a higher cost for the first four
pages. The fee of .15/page for miscellaneous copies makes it consistent with other city departments.
Councilor Pishioneri asked if the City was planning on how to anticipate requests for digital copies.
Ms. Smith asked if he was referring to data such as body cameras, etc. Yes. She said the Police
Department is looking at a trial program. They would then need to draft a policy that would address
data collection and providing for public records request as required by statute. She agreed it was a big
issue that included storage and accessibility, and would be addressed.
Other examples of digital records included audio recordings from meetings and building surveillance
(both internal and external).
Mr. Duey said he would contact the appropriate staff and add that to the Fall discussion.
Councilor Moore asked about Rental Licenses on page 8 of Attachment 2 of the agenda packet. She
asked for clarification.
It is for rental properties starting at four-plexes and has been in place for a while.
Councilor Moore said with such a minor increase, she wondered if it was worth changing.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 14, 2016
Page 5
Mr. Duey said that is the challenge of being consistent and applying COLA’s to everything. Some fees
it didn’t make sense to raise it to an odd amount, so they rounded it up or down.
Mr. Grimaldi said Council had asked for smaller increases rather than waiting several years and
making larger increases.
Councilor VanGordon asked about the meeting room fee and when that was last increased.
Mr. Duey said that fee had not been changed in some time. There are ongoing internal discussions
about when to charge for meeting rooms and they try to keep it to a minimum.
Mr. Grimaldi said we only charge when it is outside normal operating hours.
Mr. Duey noted an error under Dog Licenses. There was an earlier discussion among staff about these
fees. They decided not to look at it from a regional perspective and forgot to include a COLA increase.
He asked if they wanted to look at making a COLA adjustment in the Fall, or a regional comparison.
Councilor Woodrow said there was a separate meeting to discuss dog fees.
Mayor Lundberg said she would like to see the COLA increase.
Mr. Duey said they would bring back that COLA adjustment to dog license fees in the Fall. Staff will
bring these updates back for adoption on March 21 during the Council meeting.
Councilor Pishioneri asked for a definition of Watchdog.
Mr. Duey said he would get that information and get back to the Council.
Councilor VanGordon asked that when they look at cost recovery targets, they look at more than one
year.
Mr. Duey said the next discussion will look at a high level.
Discussion was held regarding the number of Budget Committee meetings.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would like to see a comparison of where Springfield is compared to other
neighboring jurisdictions.
Mr. Ruettgers said staff did an evaluation when they did a fee increase last year. They met with the
HomeBuilders’ Association and made an adjustment they were more comfortable with. When they did
that, they did an analysis of the City of Eugene and Lane County’s fees which showed that
Springfield’s fees landed in about the middle. He can put that information in a Communication Packet
for the Council if they would like.
Mr. Grimaldi asked if that analysis included System Development Charges (SDCs).
Mr. Ruettgers said that is a different piece.
Mr. Grimaldi said Springfield tends to be higher in SDCs.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 14, 2016
Page 6
Mayor Lundberg said Willamalane also charges SDCs in Springfield, which adds to the full cost.
Councilor Pishioneri said he would like a full picture of what it would cost someone to build in
Springfield compared to what it would cost to build in Eugene.
Mayor Lundberg said they had received that information in the past and Springfield is higher.
4. Strategizing for Long-Term Fiscal Health.
Michelle Lewis, Management Analyst, and Bob Duey, Finance Director, presented the staff report on
this item.
The City is beginning its third year using the methodology of priority-based budgeting as a tool to help
focus the allocation of available resources to those services that help most to advance Community and
Council goals. For this annual budget process to prove successful, it is important that the City has
established long-term fiscal targets or performance measurements that support the long-term fiscal
stability for both a consistent level of base services year after year and plan in advance for expanded or
new and innovative services. This second work session reviews three proposed financial policies
concerned with defining the elements that make up a fiscally healthy organization. Council is being
asked to review and provide input on the proposed financial policies for adoption at a regular session.
Transitioning from traditional to priority-based budgeting involves learning curves for annual
budgeting as well as strategic planning, performance measurement, and evaluating long-term fiscal
health of the organization. The ultimate goal is to be able to provide consistent services to City of
Springfield citizens, now and in the future. In order to realistically assess that possibility, the City
needs to objectively identify and establish its long-term fiscal health goals for 5, 10 or 20 years into
the future.
This discussion, the second in a series on Fiscal Health, is intended to review three proposed financial
policies. Topics will include:
• Purpose of Updating Policies
• Rolling Schedule for Policy Updates
• Policy Impacts to Fiscal Health
o Categorizing Reserves
o Diversifying Revenues
o Seeking Excellence in Financial Reporting
Staff’s goal is that Council reviews the proposed policies for adoption at a regular session.
Ms. Lewis presented a power point on this topic. Fiscal health requires prioritizing services and long-
term strategizing. There have been no major revisions to the City’s financial policies for over 22 years
and Springfield’s economic reality has shifted a lot since that time. She noted that $600,000, or about
1.7% of our operating expenditures or four days, had been set aside in the General Fund for emergency
funds. The City’s dependence on property tax revenue has increased over the past ten years. The City
has an opportunity now to shape its fiscal health moving forward and financial policy updates can help
make that happen. The objective in updating the financial policies is to develop a strategic long-term
approach to achieving fiscal health. Each of the policies should be meeting one or two of the following
goals:
• Minimize the cost of government and reduce financial risk
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 14, 2016
Page 7
• Maintain appropriate financial capacity for present and future needs
• Ensure the legal use of financial resources through an effective system of internal controls
There are 9 financial policies that the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) lists as
essential or highly advisable. The City’s present financial management policies only cover three
pages, some conflict with current practices, are out of date, or ambiguously worded. The new policies
are more robust and a lot easier to understand.
Ms. Lewis reviewed the Reserve Policy. Although she is mainly talking about General Fund reserves,
if the Council decides to adopt the Reserve Policy, staff will also be trying to establish these Reserve
categories in other operating funds. The primary goal of this policy is to categorize reserves in order to
help the City and bond rating agencies identify different financial priorities and determine if there is
enough or not enough allocated to those different priorities. Our current City policy states “the City
will maintain adequate cash reserves in both Contingency and Working Capital”, but is not clear what
that means. For the General Fund, the working capital needs to cover five months cash flow. For the
General Fund, there is a revenue gap between July and when we receive the predominant amount of
property tax revenues at the end of November and December. Staff is suggesting a higher contingency
amount, up to 3%, which would cover roughly 7 days of normal General Fund activities in the event of
an emergency. That would be just under twice the current amount.
Councilor VanGordon asked how far our working capital drops during the period between July and
November.
Mr. Duey said it is close to about $900,000 between revenue coming in and our expenses going out.
Councilor Ralston asked for the definition of working capital.
Mr. Duey said it is mostly personnel.
Mr. Grimaldi said there is a balance in the General Fund that can be put into these categories.
Ms. Lewis said they were hoping to categorize the funds to make sure they have enough funds for the
City’s priorities.
Mr. Duey said the figure they are coming up with may actually be less than what we are currently
carrying.
Ms. Lewis said the third category is the Revenue or Rate Stabilization. This is meant to cover
unanticipated fluctuations in revenues or expenses. For the General Fund, it is revenue stabilization.
Projections are made early in the budget cycle on property tax increases for the next several years. The
revenue stabilization being suggested is a 1% difference in our projections versus the actuals we
receive. That is meant to be over three years. For the General Fund revenue stabilization amount, staff
is suggesting a $1M set aside to cover the potential shifts between our projections and actual amounts.
Mr. Duey provided an example with property taxes. This type of fund could help the City get through
those gaps and projections that are lower than expected. It can also help keep rate changes remain
more steady rather than going up and down.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 14, 2016
Page 8
Ms. Lewis said the remaining balance is represented by unrestricted reserves. Those fund are set aside
for program development and unmet needs. Other funds have different circumstances, so
categorization ensures that financial priorities are met.
Mr. Duey said a good example of unrestricted revenues for the General Fund is looking at what is
coming in the next three years that doesn’t fit into the other categories. The Fire Levy is one example
of something they are looking at moving into the General Fund over the next few years.
Ms. Lewis said other parts of the Reserve Policy include how we will build up the reserves initially,
how we re-establish the reserves once used, etc.
Councilor VanGordon asked what kind of discussions had been held about the replenishment plan and
how funds would be added back.
Ms. Lewis said the replenishment policy they have discussed involves using one-time dollars to set up
those amounts. Planning fees have been well above what was anticipated. Those extra dollars would
be set aside to build up a reserve.
Councilor VanGordon asked how the Council would know that is occurring.
Mr. Duey said they would have line items and it would come to the Budget Committee for discussion.
Mr. Grimaldi said in the past, it was difficult to show the contingencies. Having these policies in place
will allow them to see them more clearly.
Councilor VanGordon said it would be helpful to have it more distinct and brought to their attention.
Councilor Wylie asked if things like equipment reserves per department would still remain separate.
Mr. Duey said they are in a restricted reserve fund, which is an internal service fund managed by
Finance. There are also restricted funds for particular capital projects. These won’t interfere with those
restricted funds. One of the projects staff will be undertaking is to look at those funds to make sure
they are adequate. They will be kept separate from these four categories. Another advantage in having
these types of policies in place is for bond rating. Staff is discussing the first three policies tonight, and
will bring the other six policies to Council in the future, three at a time.
Mayor Lundberg said it will be simpler as long as they have clear definitions. The amount needed for
each category, such as working capital, is easy to understand when presented with the amount needed
to see us through a certain period of time. Rate stabilization is not as clear.
Ms. Lewis said for rate stabilization, staff would explain how they get to a certain number by looking
at projections compared to reality.
Mr. Duey said their plan is to be consistent from year to year of what’s normally used for a formula.
He noted that compression is more of an issue. They need to consider adding something in their
formula that not only addresses property taxes, but the effect of compression on our revenues.
Councilor Moore asked about volatile funds and what factors were included when looking at how to
fund the reserves.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 14, 2016
Page 9
Mr. Duey said different funds have different volatile actions. They will look at each fund individually.
Ms. Lewis spoke regarding the Revenue Policy. She said the current Revenue Policy says that the City
will decrease dependence on property taxes, which hasn’t been done. The concept of equitable funding
is that services having a citywide benefit are financed with revenue sources generated from a broad
base, and services where the customer determines the use are financed with user fees related to the
level of service provided. She provided an example of a user-only service, such as a remodel. The
purpose is to relieve the strain on the property taxes for services that only benefit a handful.
Councilor Woodrow said in this scenario, it would appear a gas tax would fall into the equitable
funding for street repair.
Ms. Lewis said equitable funding is about the proportion of the revenue sources are paying for a
particular service. The other piece is revenue diversification. The goal of revenue diversification is to
maintain a good balance of revenue sources. Currently, the General Fund’s three largest revenues are
property taxes, internal charges, and in-lieu-of tax fees. These represent over three-quarters of the total
revenues coming into the City. In order to reduce dependency on property taxes and diversify the
revenue base, they could look at how to increase other portions of the fund. The City has the most
control over fees for services, franchise fees, building code related fees, fire code related fees, and
business licenses. Looking forward, it’s important to plan the revenue areas the City hopes to provide
a greater percentage of revenue, and recognize areas where percentages will decrease. She provided an
example. Using the concepts of both revenue diversification and equitable financing, property taxes
can be allocated more to citywide services as other revenues support more individual based services.
Councilor Ralston said the only way to lower dependency on property taxes is to raise fees on
everything else. That leads to those who say it is more expensive to build in Springfield.
Mr. Duey said it is a balancing act in looking at revenues and expenditures. The job is figuring out the
balance between what services should cost less and which services can generate more revenue.
Mayor Lundberg said when someone does a remodel, they are increasing the value of their home,
which increases the property tax. She would assume that 75% of the 6% increase between 2015-2016
was personnel costs. Part of what they need to do is decrease the cost of government. If they are going
to raise fees, they need to offer enough to make it worthwhile. We are always trying to decrease those
costs, such as saving money on our health insurance. If we are growing 6% in costs every year, yet it
is not all from personnel, where is that increase coming from and is there a way to reduce or control
that increase? That is something to keep in mind.
Councilor Wylie asked if we knew the PERS increase in the coming year.
Mr. Duey said there was no increase on July 1, 2016, but there would be an increase on July 1, 2017 of
approximately $500,000. They lowered the PERS rate for the current two-year period due to the
legislative action, but because it was overturned, we have to pay back the reduction plus increase
moving forward. It is been built into the projections for the next few years.
Councilor Wylie asked about an automobile tax compared with a vehicle registration tax. She asked if
any cities were doing an automobile tax.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 14, 2016
Page 10
Mr. Duey said different states do different ways. Some states set the license fee on the value of the
vehicle. He doesn’t know of any city in Oregon implementing that tax. He is not sure if cities can do
that.
Council was generally not in support of considering that tax.
Councilor Moore said the efficiencies are going to make the difference. She gave examples in some of
the City’s departments where efficiencies through technology have been implemented.
Mr. Duey said Springfield has been a lean service level city for many years. Since 2009, the City has
lost between 60-70 employees, adding about 20 into the Jail. The efficiencies they are finding now just
allow services to be provided that we have not been able to do, not necessarily to add new projects.
We are at a point where it is difficult to see ways to reduce staff more. About 70% of the General Fund
is from property taxes, and about 75% of General Fund is public safety.
Councilor VanGordon said he agreed with Councilor Moore. He is waiting to see how all of these will
tie together to create a long-term strategy that will improve our fiscal health. Some of it is structural
and some is efficiencies. Structurally we are looking to find a way to change our revenue picture by
the $800,000-$1M. The challenge is that costs are growing faster than our revenues.
Mr. Duey said the General Fund property taxes are growing two to three percent a year, and costs are
growing about five percent. They are looking at how to close that gap for the next two to four years in
the future.
Councilor VanGordon said it will be a multi-year process, but will be well worth it.
Mayor Lundberg said they are in agreement that they need to find that balance through policy
direction.
Councilor Moore said this is a way of redefining how they look at funds, rather than how to decrease
or increase.
Mr. Duey said they are looking now for establishing targets.
Councilor Moore said she hears of cities that go bankrupt and she wonders how that happens. Mr.
Duey keeps the Council well informed and aware of our funds.
Mr. Duey said 2007-2008 was the healthiest the City’s budget has been since he has worked here, and
then the recession hit. Many of the goals from 2007-2008 were put on hold in order to weather the
recession. We are now trying to come out of the recession. The City of Eugene got out of the recession
a couple of years ahead of Springfield. Now that we are working our way out of the recession, this is
our chance to look at a longer path of where we want to go.
Mayor Lundberg said the Council needs to give policy direction to staff. We have had an affordable
housing target, but not a high-end housing target and they pay more property taxes. She also noted
some challenges with businesses and growing that tax base. One way to increase our revenues is to
increase our property tax base, and commercial is a good way to do that.
Ms. Lewis discussed the Accounting, Auditing and Financial Reporting Policy. The update is to make
it more robust and to include obtaining the Certificate of Achievement for Excellence for Financial
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 14, 2016
Page 11
Reporting. The City receives this consistently, but by putting it on the policy, we can be consistent for
the long-term. From Council direction, they have discussed the fund structure.
Mr. Duey said they have cut 12 funds, making it more transparent and simplified. He provided an
example.
Ms. Lewis said staff will continue to review existing policies, revise and incorporate best practices,
clarify and improve, and implement revised policies.
Council directed staff to bring the three policies presented tonight to the regular meeting for adoption.
They thanked staff for all of their hard work.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:30 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY MARCH 21, 2016
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday March 21, 2016 at 6:00 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri.
Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney
Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Wylie was absent (excused).
1. NEDCO Update and Discover Downtown Springfield.
Courtney Griesel, Management Analyst, presented the staff report on this item.
Ms. Griesel said tonight’s presentation would be regarding Discover Downtown and the work
Neighborhood Economic Development Corporation (NEDCO) has been doing in downtown
Springfield and Springfield in general.
Ms. Griesel spoke regarding the Food Cart/Mobile Food Vending process and program. An overview
was included in the agenda packet. It includes information on start-up costs, and ongoing operational
costs of the carts. Economic Development staff at the City took a hard look at that business model as
they tried to understand why we were not seeing them come into downtown. They also met with
business owners and found that part of the issue was lack of employment base downtown creating
enough demand. Originally, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds were allocated to
the Food Cart Program to outline policies, not necessarily to fund an ongoing program. Their hope was
to have enough interest and foot traffic to fund continued operations. They hope to look further over
the next month to find ways to provide better access to that path into downtown and hear from the
vendors the kinds of things they look for that would help improve this program. Erin Fifield,
Community Development Analyst, was present to answer questions about the CDBG program.
Ms. Griesel said staff had worked with NEDCO over the last six months to understand where
leadership in the Discover Downtown program should fall. There is currently not a funded Discover
Downtown Manager which means the urban renewal district has not been putting out funds for that
position.
Emily Reiman, Executive Director of NEDCO, said she was appointed to this position about 10
months ago. At that time, she had been the manager of their personal asset building programs for
about five years. Although she had been with NEDCO for a while, the community economic
development work, and particularly the work partnering with the City of Springfield, was relatively
new to her. She knew the first year would be about assessment and evaluation of NEDCO’s programs.
A couple of trends emerged quickly during that evaluation. The partnerships with the City of
Springfield were a little tenuous. NEDCO had not always delivered where they could have, had not
done a good job communicating where those partnership existed, and had not made sure both the City
and NEDCO had clear and common expectations around the work they had undertaken. These factors
caused a general level of frustration with some of the areas NEDCO had partnered with the City most
closely. The other thing that became evident was that in the community economic development work
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 21, 2016
Page 2
NEDCO was doing, including SPROUT, the Main Street Program, the Food Cart Program and the
Micro-Enterprise Business Education Services. As a cluster, they are on a very unsustainable path.
Financially, that set of programming was significantly in the red across the board. The combination of
the tenuous partnership relationships and the fact the community economic development programs
were on such an unsustainable path forward, became the work that she, the management team and
NEDCO Board of Directors had been tackling for the last ten months. It became apparent they would
need a state of NEDCO union and state of the NEDCO and City of Springfield partnership
presentation to Council. That is what she and Ms. Griesel have been working on for tonight. She
outlined her three objectives for tonight’s discussion:
• General overview of NEDCO services and what they do in the City of Springfield.
• Discuss the changes NEDCO has gone through in the last year to address the problems faced
when she started, and put NEDCO on a different footing.
• Set the stage for ongoing conversations moving forward about how NEDCO and the City can
be better and more effective partners and provide the most impact possible in a sustainable and
thoughtful way.
Mayor Lundberg said she would like to hear about those programs that are specific to Springfield. She
also suggested that Council be able to ask their questions as Ms. Reiman goes through her
presentation.
Ms. Reiman referred to a chart in Attachment 1 of the agenda packet (NEDCO Update Report) which
illustrates the rapid growth that NEDCO underwent. In 2009-2010 they were relatively small with a
budget of about $700,000 and a staff of seven. Over the course of the next four or five years, they
expanded dramatically mostly in the personal asset building program which includes financial literacy,
first time homeownership, and foreclosure prevention. They do work with a lot of families in
Springfield and the impacts of that work are shown on the final page of the report. That program
scaled in a way that was sustainable and NEDCO continues to be a leader in the state for both
foreclosure and home ownership counseling.
Ms. Reiman said the other area NEDCO scaled rapidly was in community economic development. The
cost for SPROUT was more than the majority of dollars invested in community economic
development with relatively smaller amounts going to micro-enterprise services and the Main Street
Program. Between 2009-2014, there was rapid expansion in all of those programs, including the entire
conception of SPROUT!.
Ms. Reiman noted that the report includes one-page summaries of each of the four departments in
NEDCO. The Personal Asset Building page shows that most of the programs are break even or require
minimal subsidy. The subsidies are modest and generally come from private grant sources or
sponsorships sources that are very stable. The Community Economic Development page notes that all
of the programs in this section require substantial subsidies. When she took over as Executive
Director, they were nearly through half of the fiscal year and were on track to lose a significant
amount of money in this department. They are in the fourth year of NEDCO investment into the
SPROUT! Program. From its concept, it was meant to be on a five-year business plan to a break event
point. It has taken more investment on NEDCO’s part than originally planned and will likely take
more than five years to get to the break-even point. They have about $2.5M in NEDCO investment in
the SPROUT! building, not counting grants. Compared to that, the other programs were smaller
subsidies but every dollar counts when facing a large deficit. The Springfield Farmer’s Market was
running at a $20,000 NEDCO investment (deficit) annually, the Main Street Program was running at
about a $30,000-$35,000 investment (deficit) annually, and the non-profit Incubator Program at about
a $60,000-$70,000 investment (deficit). NEDCO was not going to be able to sustain that level of
investment over that number of programs and be able to deliver on any of them well, and could
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 21, 2016
Page 3
possibly be looking at the complete closure of some of them. Ms. Reiman said she started working
with the management team, Board of Directors and City staff to try to evaluate which might have
stable funding sources, whether or not business models or strategies to make them more viable, or did
they need to shift NEDCO’s focus to areas where they had more sustainable funding sources. Over the
course of the last year, they decided that because of the level of investment in SPROUT! and the
unique asset it proved to the community, that (along with the Farmer’s Market) should be the core
focus of their community economic investment in time and resources. They realized the Main Street
Programs wasn’t a model they could sustain over the long term and wasn’t at a place that was going to
be sustainable in a few years. They also realized that their Non-profit Business Incubator was not a
sustainable concept and that although they could scale down the Micro Enterprise services and find a
niche that served a community need and was viable in terms of funding, it didn’t include a Non-profit
Incubator.
Ms. Reiman referred to the section on NEDCO’s Property Development activities which include
affordable housing, and commercial development acquisition and rehabilitation. The property
development is one of the more stable program areas outside of SPROUT!. Many of these programs
are actually income generating and have been for a number of years. She referred to the Community
LendingWorks Program which was developed about five years ago to do community development
lending work. That is another area where they have sustainable break even programs that can scale
without significant grant funding. Those programs are funded primarily through fees and interest
earned on the lending activity, with a few government grants. They have focused changes and
adjustments on the Community Economic Development program to make it more sustainable and
viable. Over the long-term, she feels they will be in a good position to do good community
development work, but most will need to be done through building development, through micro and
small business lending, some of the micro-enterprise services and their work at SPROUT!. They have
a long going expertise in those areas, and can bring the most resources to the table so they are
sustainable in the long term.
Councilor Woodrow referred to the update report and the organizational summary where it lists
expansion to Clackamas County and southern Oregon. She was curious how much that was taking
away from the resources in our area.
Ms. Reiman said NEDCO does have a three-County service area – Lane, Marion and Clackamas
counties. Their community economic development work is exclusively focused in Lane County now
and in Springfield. The programs they have in the other two counties are largely the Personal Asset
Building programs which scale in a sustainable way and have State and Federal funding; and the
Community LendingWorks Program which also scales in a sustainable way. Both of those programs
have an independent funding stream from the Community Economic Development program, and are
funding models that can cover its costs as it scales. They are remaining focused on Springfield only in
the Community Economic Development program until they can get to a more stable position. The fact
that theyhave to scale back on the Main Street Program and Incubator program does not mean
NEDCO is any less invested in Springfield or are deprioritizing. The management team and Board talk
frequently about their commitment to Springfield, and realize they have not fulfilled their commitment
the way they envisioned. With the changes, they are not trying to draw back from Springfield, but to
position themselves in a way to have a much bigger impact in a more sustainable way.
Ms. Griesel said staff has talked with downtown businesses recently about an upcoming event
revolving around Mother’s Day that would be sponsored within the urban renewal district. This will be
a minor investment for a do-it-now activity, with some business-to-business networking and
consulting. NEDCO staff at SPROUT! has been key in sitting at the table with businesses as another
downtown business to create momentum and leadership. They are looking at taking some of the funds
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 21, 2016
Page 4
that were budgeted for Discover Downtown work and applying them towards an actual event. At the
same time, city staff has been meeting with the Springfield Chamber to discuss ways to generate
momentum within the organizations to focus it downtown and bring businesses together, asking how
they would like to be engaged differently in the future, and how the last five years with Discover
Downtown has been. They are asking for ideas to carry forward. She has been happy to have NEDCO
and SPROUT! staff as co-businesses at the table with our other downtown businesses.
Mayor Lundberg said you have expanded very rapidly in areas where she feels they can make money
to expand the services. She noted that the fundraising line under SPROUT! should include much more.
Ms. Reiman said they were working on adding to that.
Mayor Lundberg said SPROUT! is definitely one of the most important things in Springfield and they
can’t let it fail since it is cornerstone of our redevelopment efforts. Affordable housing is another area
where NEDCO is an important player. They took part in the foreclosure and threshold programs for
many years. It’s an important piece in helping people get a leg up on being stable in the community.
The City is not building affordable housing so depends on having people who can, and want that to be
successful. We need to find a way that downtown businesses have a support mechanism and involving
the Chamber of Commerce is one way. She separated food from the Non-profit Business Incubator
program because that is the cornerstone of SPROUT!. Our other partners can worry about other kinds
of micro businesses. The idea for food carts came from a need to provide better food options for
students in downtown. Perhaps they could specialize in a program that brings in our high school
students and let them do micro entrepreneurship. There is room for developing our food hub engaging
the high school students, giving them a table at an event, or even a competition at the Farmer’s
Market. She already talked to School Superintendent Sue Rieke-Smith about the idea.
Ms. Reiman said it is her two-year ambition to get micro enterprise services for youth at SPROUT!
and in the food world. She loves the idea.
Mayor Lundberg said the big issue is what to do with SPROUT!. One of the issues is that they need to
rent out the building, and they first need to get the sprinkler system in place so they don’t have to
charge the extra amount. She requested Council move some of the funding from previous CDBG
funds that were granted and not used by NEDCO, towards the sprinkler system. If NEDCO can raise
the rest, they can get it completed.
Ms. Reiman said they were still getting the final bids in for the sprinkler system.
Mayor Lundberg said any money transferred for this project would lower the amount NEDCO needed
to raise for that system.
Ms. Reiman said the good news is that the events are bigger and more frequent than originally
thought, which require the sprinkler system.
Mayor Lundberg said if it fails it could sit empty for a number of years. We have the momentum in
downtown to help it move forward.
Ms. Griesel said staff could go back and look at what we could do regarding re-appropriation of the
CDBG funds and how much. They will know more once they get the bid. The sprinkler system is
intended to get SPROUT! ready to rent for events that help fund the facility. There are other
opportunities to look at other programs, and staff could bring back some funding options.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 21, 2016
Page 5
Councilor Woodrow said she felt with the funding back and Ms. Reiman’s participation, NEDCO
could reach out to fundraise and promote the facility for events.
Ms. Reiman said NEDCO is already in talks with potential funders for SPROUT!. They can’t submit
full proposals until they get back the final bids and know what they need.
Mayor Lundberg said if those sponsors give them the full funding, the City wouldn’t need to transfer
funds over.
Councilor Moore referred to the Property Development and several foreclosed homes that were
rehabbed and were now affordable rentals. She asked if NEDCO held the ownership of those homes.
Ms. Reiman said they do for those five. Historically, NEDCO has mostly developed single family
properties for first-time buyers. Due to the circumstances and a number of foreclosed properties, they
re-tooled their single-family development for a few years and kept those for affordable rentals. She
could confirm, but she believes they have 15 or 20 year affordability clauses.
Councilor Moore applauded Ms. Reiman for the report she provided. It was very comprehensive. She
noted the low amount listed that food carts make per day.
Ms. Reiman said it is partly why the shift has been for a permanent location for food carts.
Ms. Griesel said the hourly wage is low partly because they see the food vendors start up as a low-paid
owner-operator system.
Councilor VanGordon said he was fine reallocating the CDBG funds if they don’t receive additional
funds through other grants. He would like to see it as a match program to help promote fundraising.
Even though the City would be taking back the food cart program, it would still be allowed.
Ms. Griesel said City staff will take a six-month look at the food cart program, and look at who should
be the first point of contact (City or NEDCO). For now it will remain with NEDCO.
Councilor VanGordon asked if there were plans to spend the Discover Downtown funds if they take it
back from NEDCO.
Ms. Griesel said once the Downtown Manager was no longer on salary at NEDCO, they were no
longer invoicing the City. The funds are still part of the downtown urban renewal district and will go
through the normal prioritization process for those funds. They are looking at doing a business-to-
business concept and utilizing the SPROUT! venue as a great Mother’s Day event to come, shop and
eat downtown, with fun activities and music. There will be some advertising for the event. The funds
will remain in a line item to allow the City to be responsive to opportunities. If we hadn’t had that
budget, we could have moved funds for this type of activity.
Councilor VanGordon said he would be interested in knowing the game plan for the rest of the fiscal
year.
Ms. Griesel said she could do an update to the Council regarding the downtown urban renewal agency.
Councilor VanGordon said he would like to move forward with NEDCO, and figure out how to
continue to grow the partnership and get things in line.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 21, 2016
Page 6
Councilor Pishioneri thanked Ms. Reiman for her report and the details about NEDCO and their
programs. He would like to see something subsequent to this about how these issues can be solved. He
would also like to see if other cities that have these programs in place are also in the red. If not, what
are they doing that makes them successful that could be used as models. It is a work in progress. He
appreciates the amount of effort and the communication provided.
Ms. Reiman said she hired Lisa Hardwig with the sole mission of helping NEDCO and the Board
figure out SPROUT!. They have cut the deficit by about two-thirds. She will make that the focus of
her next report.
Councilor Woodrow said she would like to see that happen downtown. The short-range action items
that can bring back unification of the businesses are going to be crucial. Once they have the short-
range items, they can focus on long-range goals and expectations. She previously served on one of the
downtown committees and it was easy to get bogged down with details rather than making progress.
Ms. Reiman said NEDCO is a member business in those efforts. She also pointed out that their lending
program has already helped four or six downtown businesses be able to expand and locate in
downtown. Plank Town is a great example of NEDCO assisting with their location downtown. That is
a huge resource to assist those invested in making downtown successful.
Ms. Griesel said the City will continue to move some of the funds from the budget for the lighting
project, crosswalks, beautification and art. They will continue to look for activities to partner with
downtown businesses and for the basics of business.
Mayor Lundberg said she would like to see the next report before they go on Summer Break, even if
it’s in a Communication Packet. Some things to include are: focusing on SPROUT! and food based
businesses; lending programs; and affordable housing. Those are the things most critical to the
Council. The City will try to find other partners for some of the events.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:51 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY MARCH 28, 2016
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday March 28, 2016 at 5:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors VanGordon, Moore, Ralston, Woodrow and Pishioneri.
Also present were City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney
Mary Bridget Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilor Wylie was absent (excused).
1. Fiscal Year 2015 Federal Grant Compliance Report.
Nathan Bell, Accounting Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
On January 19, 2016 the auditors presented the annual audit and CAFR to the Council. In accordance
with compliance requirements related to the City expending more than $500,000 in federal awards, the
City is required to complete an A-133 audit (the Single Audit). The Single Audit has now been
completed and will be presented. Kylie McCloskey and Chuck Swank, of Grove, Mueller & Swank,
will review the audit process, the Independent Auditor’s Reports, and the City’s Federal Grant
Compliance Report during the work session.
Mr. Swank said when they were here in January, there was discussion about the federal compliance
audit. The City is required to engage their external auditor to audit a certain percentage of federal
dollars whenever the City expends more than $500,000 in federal dollars. Because the City met that
threshold, the City was required to have an annual financial statement audit, but also a federal
compliance audit. The auditors don’t look at every program or every dollar. It is a rotational emphasis
on the amount of dollars spent. A formula determines which programs are audited in which year.
Programs the City spends a significant amount of dollars have to be audited every third year. They
were already scheduled to audit the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds in
2015. His report includes a schedule of federal dollars spent on what programs. They are required to
have two reports: 1) the Auditor’s Report on Internal Control and Compliance (a broad report done in
conjunction with the audit on the City’s financial statements – completed in December with no
findings); and 2) an opinion on the federal programs they audited this year. In their opinion on federal
compliance, they believe their audit is a reasonable basis for compliance on the federal programs
audited; however, their audit does not provide a legal determination of the City’s compliance. The
federal compliance is for performance.
Mr. Swank said the first finding was that the City was not timely in filing reports on expenditures.
Most federal agencies require the City to file quarterly reports, which was not done for several
quarters. The second finding was that staff had questions about how to handle sub-recipients.
Sometimes cities have another governmental agency or non-profit expend the funds under their
guidance. Those agencies are called the sub-recipients. Springfield is the sub-recipient of funds from
State of Oregon. The City has a responsibility to make sure the sub-recipients are doing everything
required under the grant, and the second finding relates to notification procedures, monitoring and
follow-up on sub-recipient dollars.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 28, 2016
Page 2
Mayor Lundberg said that verified what she thought had happened. We had sub-recipients that forgot
they were given funds, which was a concern. There was a gray area for reporting.
Councilor Pishioneri said based on what he has read, it seems there has been money that was not
expended coming back to the City, and lack of tracking. He said it seems to indicate inappropriate
expenditure of funds or loss of funds somewhere. He wants to make sure we can where all the funds
went.
Mr. Swank said there was no inappropriate spending. It is more the documentation so they can follow
the trail.
Mr. Grimaldi said when the City awards the grant, we don’t necessarily provide the funds
immediately. Funds being returned never left the City.
Mr. Swank said they found no inappropriate spending, but more a lack of the documentation trail.
Sub-recipient monitoring is difficult. The federal government recently has been looking more closely
at the tracking, and the City has paid more attention in the last few years to address that.
Ms. Fifield said during HUD’s monitoring last year, they asked what a contract was awarded for, the
amount, was it paid out, was it matching what was drawn from HUD. From those questions, there was
a concern from them about documentation. Staff was able to provide documentation, but brought up
the question of documentation and how to track it better.
Mr. Swank said nothing happens until the dollars are drawn.
Mr. Bell said invoices come into the Finance Department who create the voucher. It then goes to Ms.
Fifield to review, and then to Tom Boyatt for approval. There are multiple internal controls in place.
Mr. Swank said they have performed a single audit for the City for a number of years and they always
had good reports. Finance does a really good job.
Councilor Pishioneri said he appreciated the openness on the report.
Councilor VanGordon asked how they were planning for staff turnover in the future to make sure
appropriate processes are in place for documentation.
Ms. Fifield said staff is working on that internally and with HUD. Currently, there is an informal
process that worked in the past, but nothing was written down. They are formalizing the process and
writing it down so any staff member would know the requirements. They are matching it with HUD
and other requirements.
Mayor Lundberg said part of the result of both Springfield and Eugene not keeping good records is
that our CDBG funds got split into a more complicated process. We now are in a different program,
which limits our funds. Some people didn’t know they had the money available. She is glad Councilor
VanGordon asked about steps to make sure we aren’t in this situation again. The City needs to do
quarterly reports for the federal funds, and then also require sub-recipients to do the same. She would
like to see how the sub-recipients are required to report. We need some assurance from the sub-
recipients so the City knows the status of the funds. She will always be unhappy that the CDBG and
HOME funds were separated due to our reports.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 28, 2016
Page 3
Ms. Fifield said staff has started to build processes into the contract which started when they were
drafting the contract with NEDCO for SPROUT!. They looked at what Eugene requires for HUD and
decided that would work for the quarterly reports showing the work being done. They will build those
requirements into the contract to track funds to make sure they are spent down appropriately. If the
sub-recipient does not provide the report, staff would check in with them. They haven’t developed a
plan for what to do if the sub-recipient fails to provide a report.
Mayor Lundberg said she thinks that is something Council should discuss. That is why she is hesitant
to give NEDCO money because they haven’t used the original funding. They need to decide how they
want to check in as a Council.
Councilor Woodrow said we are adding something in because we have to be responsible for the funds
going out to sub-recipients. When requiring reports on a regular basis, there needs to be consequences
such as a way to put a hold on any additional funds until the report is received.
Mayor Lundberg said part of the issue is reporting, and the other is the fund recipient not doing the
project they requested the funding for.
Mr. Grimaldi said staff could come back annually to Council to report on all existing grants. There
will be circumstances that need explaining, and other cases where the funds need to be reallocated.
Sometimes things are beyond the control of the recipient.
Councilor Moore said the last report from Ms. Fifield outlined the recipients and where funds were
sitting. That report was very helpful. She thought part of the reason the CDBG and HOME Funds were
split was because of new HUD regulations.
Ms. Fifield said there were two factors that brought about the change. The 2014 HUD monitoring of
the HOME Program (Eugene and Springfield Consortium) showed issues with several projects in
Springfield. At the same time, HUD requirements were changing and we had to change our process.
Mayor Lundberg said it took away Springfield’s ability to allocate HOME funds ourselves.
Ms. Fifield said HUD sets the percentage of what Springfield is allocated based on population or need
compared to Eugene. Eugene now gets the pool of funds, and the intergovernmental agreement (IGA)
dictates how decisions are made. The funds are received annually, but it is now up to the Governing
Board whether or not there is room to share. The process is more complicated, and we are no longer
managing the HOME funds on our own.
Mayor Lundberg asked if CDBG funds would be revisited again soon, or would be part of the rotation.
Mr. Swank said the auditors must close the loop.
Ms. McCloskey said it will depend on what the City’s other numbers show. What they audit is formula
based. If they receive a lot more CDBG funds next year, and other programs are smaller, they may still
have to look at CDBG funds since that is where the bulk of the City’s funds are held. There are a
number of factors in the formula. They will ask the questions and a look at documentation to close the
loop.
Mr. Swank said in 2015, the CDBG dollars were almost 50% of the federal dollars. When they are that
high, the auditors are required to look at it again sooner.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 28, 2016
Page 4
Mayor Lundberg said staff will work on our report submittals, put together a paper trail for sub-
recipients for reporting and getting the projects done, and a closing the loop report from the audit.
Mr. Grimaldi said staff will also come back annually to give Council a status report on outstanding
grants.
Councilor Woodrow asked if they could get an update in the Communication Packet once they get the
forms finalized for reporting.
Mayor Lundberg said she wants to keep track of the SPROUT funds.
Mr. Grimaldi said next week Council will be allocating HOME funds.
Ms. Fifield said a work session will be held on April 18 regarding CDBG allocations.
2. Lane Regional Air Protection Agency (LRAPA) Report.
Gino Grimaldi, City Manager, presented the staff report on this item.
The intergovernmental agreement to form LRAPA in 1968 has allowed local governments to more
effectively and efficiently reduce air pollution and improve air quality within Lane County. LRAPA is
asking local jurisdictions to consider an updated IGA to reflect recent changes in Oregon Statutes by
the 2015 Legislature.
The LRAPA Board of Directors has approved a revised Intergovernmental Agreement consistent with
changes in Oregon Statutes by the 2015 Legislature. The statute changes allow a second position for
cities with populations under 25,000. For LRAPA, the changes would essentially convert an at-large
board position so that both Oakridge and Cottage Grove would have positions on the 9-member
LRAPA Board.
Springfield currently has two positions, Eugene has four, and Lane County has one.
For the revised IGA to take effect, all five IGA partners (Lane County and the cities of Eugene,
Springfield, Cottage Grove and Oakridge) would need to approve.
Merlyn Hough, Director of LRAPA, and Jo Niehaus, Public Affairs Manager from LRAPA presented
a power point on this topic. Mr. Hough referred to topics for discussion: air quality trends in
Springfield and Eugene, revised LRAPA IGA, CAC recommended local rule changes, and recent
LRAPA website updates.
Mr. Hough displayed and explained a chart showing the air quality in the Eugene/Springfield area. For
the most part, we have maintained good air quality health standards. Ozone is a summer time problem,
but we have been able to maintain good air quality by keeping good ozone numbers. He discussed
particulate matter, which was less of a contributor due to the wood industry having effective controls
in place. We have seen dramatic improvements with air quality controls at mills and in wood burning.
He described the standards and noted that Oakridge is often above the standards. Eugene is
approaching the standard; however Springfield and Cottage Grove have stayed consistently below the
standard max. He noted that violating the standards had long-term consequences.
Mr. Hough spoke regarding the IGA which would allow Oakridge and Cottage Grove to each have a
representative on the LRAPA Board. In the past, the other 8 members of the board have selected the
at-large position, giving preference for the one at-large seat to rotate between Cottage Grove and
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 28, 2016
Page 5
Oakridge. This would provide more consistency. For the revised IGA to take effect, all five IGA
partners (Lane County and the cities of Eugene, Springfield, Cottage Grove and Oakridge) would need
to approve.
Mr. Hough said the Citizen Advisory Committee (CAC) reviews complaints that come into LRAPA.
Most complaints have decreased except for two – open burning and home wood heating. He spoke
regarding proposed outdoor burning changes: limits size of ceremonial fire (larger fires would require
bonfire letter permits with conditions); prohibits outdoor burning in barrels (based on frequent pattern
of burning garbage and other prohibited materials); prohibits outdoor burning of grass clippings in
Lane County based on heavy smoke; prohibits outdoor burning of fallen leaves within city limits
based on heavy smoke; and prohibits outdoor burning in the Eugene and Springfield UGB’s. He
explained why those changes were being proposed.
Mr. Hough spoke regarding proposed home wood heating changes: clarifies that smoke-density limits
also apply to low-income exempt homes which are allowed to burn even on RED advisory days;
reduces the smoke-density limits to 20% opacity, consistent with Oakridge and other areas in the
Pacific Northwest, if approved by Eugene and Springfield in their city ordinances; extends the home
wood hearting advisory season to October – May (from November – February) beginning Oct. 1,
2015.
Mr. Hough reviewed some of the updates to the website.
Mr. Hough said they would like to get the IGA signed by Springfield if they approve, and would also
like the Council to provide feedback on the recommended changes to local rules from the CAC.
Discussion was held regarding the 20% opacity not being visible.
Councilor Moore asked if gas fireplace inserts were allowed anytime since they don’t create smoke.
Mr. Hough said that was correct.
Councilor Moore said she was pleased to see the State providing funds to put in those inserts.
Mr. Hough said fireplaces are not energy efficient.
Councilor Pishioneri asked about the word “standard” and if it was a state or federal law.
Mr. Hough said they are national air quality health standards, set by the United States Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) with the advice of a non-EPA group appointed by Congress made up of
scientists and medical professionals. They make recommendations to the EPA, who then decide
whether or not to take action. The most recent update was in October 2015.
Councilor Pishioneri said it made sense to include representatives from Cottage Grove and Oakridge.
He had concerns about some of the code changes.
Council agreed that the changes in the IGA were appropriate. It will be brought to the Council during
a regular meeting for formal approval.
Councilor Pishioneri spoke regarding the proposed code changes. The trend shows that Springfield is
below the standards so he sees no need to place controls on our citizens. We have some complaints,
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 28, 2016
Page 6
but part of that may be due to more outreach. He doesn’t want to put restrictions on citizens if he can’t
show there is an issue. He asked about the size of ceremonial fires allowed currently.
Mr. Hough said currently it does not specify the size. A three-foot diameter was first requested by the
tribes. They found that people claimed large fires were ceremonial fires. These fires were actually as
large as bon fires and presented a fire concern as well as pollution. By including a limit on size, it
gives a framework already in place for bonfires which does require coordination with the fire
department. They have more than several per year. He can give specific numbers if needed.
Councilor Pishioneri spoke regarding burning in barrels and if they issue citations for that.
Mr. Hough said a citation would be issued if someone is burning prohibited materials. It is difficult to
find evidence once they get the complaint, but if they do find prohibited materials, they issue a
citation. They are looking for a way to make it clear that garbage burning is not proper.
Councilor Pishioneri said before he can support these changes, he wants to know how big of a problem
they are.
Mr. Hough said they had 40 complaints for outdoor burning in 2010, 75 complaints in 2011, over 50
in 2012, and over 50 in 2013.
Ms. Niehaus said their head enforcement office said almost always when people are burning in barrels,
it is prohibited materials. She can pull data on the number of tickets issued for burn barrels.
Mr. Hough said recreational fires are allowed as long as they use clean dry firewood and it is not a
yellow or red woodstove day. They are not allowed for debris disposal or garbage. They are limited to
a 3-foot diameter, the same as what is being proposed for ceremonial fires.
Mayor Lundberg said the main concern is debris, such as grass, weeds, and garbage.
Councilor Ralston said the grass and leaves do create a lot of smoke and can be taken to Rexius or
other places instead of burning. Springfield’s air quality is well below restrictions so we don’t have a
problem. People should be cited for burning illegal materials, but not just because it is in barrels. He
wouldn’t want to change the provision allowing outdoor burning on ½ acre or larger lots. The urban
growth boundary (UGB) twists around and some areas are in the City and others are not. Regarding
opacity, there is not much difference between 20% and 40% even if someone is burning correctly. He
can understand some of the suggested changes, but not others. Besides prohibiting burning of grass
and leaves, he wouldn’t change anything.
Councilor VanGordon said he would need more information on the ceremonial fires to see what kind
of problem it truly is. He also needs data to show why these changes are needed in Springfield. As
long as we are far below the standard, there is no need to change. He would want to know how much
lower making these changes would put us below the standard. He is fine with grass and leaves
prohibitions, but not prohibiting burning on ½ acres lots. He would need more information to make a
decision about some of the other changes.
Councilor Moore asked is weed burning with propane torches is allowed. She asked if the air quality
could be separated from Eugene on the website.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
March 28, 2016
Page 7
Ms. Niehaus said website shows where the air quality is worse in Eugene and Springfield. When you
go in further, you can see the monitors by City. Springfield is consistently below, in part due to
location and ventilation and landscape.
Councilor Moore said would tend to want to look at the 20% opacity because she is not clear the
difference. Much of this is education.
Councilor Woodrow said she feels good that Springfield is below the standard for a twenty year range.
She agrees that the grass clippings and weeds could be prohibited. She is having difficulty
understanding what is considered outdoor burning that would be prohibited.
Mr. Hough said if someone is cooking food, it is a State exemption, but must be sized appropriately
for what you are cooking. That can be an issue with ceremonial fires, mostly where they hold big
events. Recreational fires are allowed if it is clean dry firewood on green days. Yard debris cleanup is
allowed if the lot is ½ acre or more.
Councilor Woodrow asked if it is collective data that creates the point of penalty for our area.
Mr. Hough said when the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) sets air shed boundaries, they start
from a countywide boundary. Jurisdictions have to argue to make it a smaller area. UGB’s around a
contiguous area are often a logical boundary, so it is the Eugene and Springfield UGB. Lane County
has several air sheds in a single county. They argued for a long time to have the boundary reduced and
they went down to an area covering Oakridge and their UGB, plus all of WestFir, even though those
are two separate air sheds. If Eugene violates, it has consequences for Springfield because it is the
Eugene/Springfield area. Some of the highest levels we have had were in 2013. Once they receive
2016 data, the average is likely to improve. He is optimistic that the next check point will improve.
They are confident the Springfield area is going to be fine as long as we continue to pay proper
attention. He noted that most of the LRAPA board members are opposed to vehicle inspections. He
asked that the Council begin the process to approve the IGA. He will report back to the Advisory
Committee with the Council’s comments.
Mayor Lundberg said she didn’t want to do things that caused more running around of someone to
monitor when we don’t have that big of a problem.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 7:00 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder
City of Springfield
Work Session Meeting
MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION MEETING OF
THE SPRINGFIELD CITY COUNCIL HELD
MONDAY APRIL 4, 2016
The City of Springfield Council met in a work session in the Jesse Maine Meeting Room, 225 Fifth
Street, Springfield, Oregon, on Monday April 4, 2016 at 6:30 p.m., with Mayor Lundberg presiding.
ATTENDANCE
Present were Mayor Lundberg and Councilors Moore, Woodrow and Pishioneri. Also present were
City Manager Gino Grimaldi, Assistant City Manager Jeff Towery, City Attorney Mary Bridget
Smith, City Recorder Amy Sowa and members of the staff.
Councilors VanGordon, Wylie and Ralston were absent (excused).
1. 2016 HOME Project Proposal.
Erin Fifield, Community Development Analyst, presented the staff report on this item.
The Eugene-Springfield HOME Consortium’s 2016 Housing Request for Proposals (RFP) received
four applications for affordable housing development and acquisition, one of which is in Springfield.
This application was reviewed by an Evaluation Committee, which recommended the proposal for
allocation. Springfield City Council is being asked for their approval of the project moving forward.
The Intergovernmental Governing Board will make the final decisions for use of HOME funds based
on the decisions of the Evaluation Committee and respective City Councils.
Springfield has about $700,000 in HOME funds available to allocate. Through the 2016 HOME RFP,
the Consortium received one proposal for a project in Springfield. This proposal was from St. Vincent
de Paul to build 35 new affordable housing units at 10th and Main St, next to the Afiya apartments. St.
Vincent de Paul is requesting $600,000 in HOME funds.
Final approval will be made by the Governing Board on May 2.
Councilor Pishioneri was pleased and felt this is just what this funding is for. It will remove an old
building and replace it with new affordable housing. He is amazed at the amount of money St. Vincent
DePaul is putting into the project. He likes the way it is put together.
Councilor Moore asked where St. Vincent DePaul was getting the rest of the funding.
Ms. Fifield said they applied for a large portion from the Oregon State Low-Income Housing Credit.
They hope to find out if they have received that funding sometime this Fall. The City can contingently
reward funds on the basis they receive those funds later.
Councilor Moore asked if there would be support for the people affected by the removal of the old
housing.
Ms. Fifield said that was part of the proposal.
Councilor Woodrow said she is thrilled with this project and the location. Not only is it close to the
Afiya Building, but also makes that area more attractive having those two buildings side by side as
you come into town.
City of Springfield
Council Work Session Minutes
April 4, 2016
Page 2
Mayor Lundberg asked if the $700,000 was money earmarked for Springfield. She asked if that would
change next year.
Ms. Fifield said they were still playing catch-up with past funds. Assuming we draw all of the
$700,000 this year, we will start with new funds to feed into our future pot of funds. There were three
other projects that came in for funds – two for acquisition of multi-family housing and one for new
construction. Those are going through the same process of review by the Eugene City Council, and
ultimately to the Governing Board.
Mayor Lundberg said Springfield is creating more new affordable housing through this project. There
is always concern that we don’t create enough new affordable housing. She is happy to support this
project to provide affordable housing at this location.
Councilor Moore asked if these were funds set aside for the low-income housing in Glenwood.
Ms. Fifield said they are the funds that were set aside for Glenwood Place. Based on the Housing and
Community Services Agency’s (HACSA) planned proposal for when they would need those funds, it
is projected it would be Fall of 2017. If Springfield receives funds from Congress, we will be able to
build those funds back up to give to HACSA. In the meantime, HUD’s requirements meant we needed
to award the funds now.
Councilor Moore said Afiya is a wonderful building and she is pleased we are looking at having
another nice housing facility.
Mayor Lundberg said Bascom Village is also a HACSA project. She asked if they were done with
their funding requests for that project.
Terry McDonald, Executive Director from St. Vincent DePaul said all of the funding has been secured
for both phases of Bascom.
Mayor Lundberg said she wanted to make sure Springfield was in the pipeline for funding to go
towards Glenwood Place.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:40 p.m.
Minutes Recorder – Amy Sowa
______________________
Christine L. Lundberg
Mayor
Attest:
____________________
Amy Sowa
City Recorder